Talk:Big Wapwallopen Creek/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be starting the GA review of this article in the next day or so. I usually provide my feedback in sections over a day or two instead of everything at once, but feel free to respond/address any comments even before the review is complete if you want to. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. The GA review page is on my watch list so just post here to keep all conversations in one place.  MPJ  -US 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - Starting the review, will be making updates over the next couple of days.  MPJ  -US 02:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * "milligrams" should be "milligram"
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * Tool is gone, I have tried to google some of the sentences to see if anything comes up. I did not see anything other than stuff based on Wikipedia.
 * MPJ-DK, rather than Google search, please use the Dup detector in the toolbox—it checks for duplicated (copied) text between an online source and the article. This allows you to spotcheck a handful of online sources one at a time, so picking ones that support a whole section and/or are used frequently is a good strategy. In the case of books.google.com sources, taking a direct quick look at the referenced page is the way to go, since Dup detector (or Earwig, for that matter) has no way to look inside the book. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, great I did not realize that. I have checked the majority of the sources and found no issues.  MPJ  -US 18:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The tool is no more in the toolbox but you can still access it here . I still use it. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * Two dead links (Marked in red in the tool)
 * One Connection Issue (marked in blue)
 * Should all be fixed now. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources/verifiable

 * There are sources in the lead, the general guideline on leads and sources say that all sources should be in the main article itself, not the lead. Having them in the lead makes it look like that info is only in the lead, which it should not be.
 * One was there solely for DYK purposes, and has been removed. One was moved down to the history section. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For printed sources in general would it be possible to list the location of the publisher?
 * I already do? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference three - since it's 3 differnet page ranges would it be possible to break it into 3 separate citations, this way it's easier to indicate which section sources each statement?
 * I think that would be clunkier and less efficient, to be honest. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So doing a deep dive in the sources I look at a reference like #2, which also references three different sections. Checking against what it's supposed to source I am mystified what on page 29 or 38 actually covers in the article.? I don't see the Wapwallopen Creek listed on those pages?  MPJ  -US 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be the tributaries. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  13:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference 10 - the title of the source may be in all caps but Wikipedia guidelines recommends they are not in all caps in the reference.
 * Okay. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference 22 - missing data on the source around publisher etc.
 * ok.


 * Reference 23 - same as above
 * ok


 * 24 same
 * N/A


 * 26 same
 * N/A


 * 27 same
 * N/A


 * 28 same
 * ok


 * Source 28 has an archive url that's blacklisted - which means the original source is not available and the archive is not good. Is the page listed on archive.org or something else?
 * I already checked archive.org and webcite. Nothing.


 * Still not a fan of a source that basically says "Hey here is a link to a Map app, go figure it out." that source 1
 * Better?

Broad in coverage

 * It's a creek article, it's got what you'd expect so yes ✅

Neutral

 * At first look yes. If i find something I will mention it under "well written" ✅

Stable

 * Yes, no sign of edit wars and contend dispute ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * Looks legit to me, licenses in order ✅

Well Written

 * Course
 * "It eventually tuns" should be "It eventually turns"
 * Fixed.


 * The fact that the last paragraph is just one sentence looks odd,
 * Don't think it would integrate well with any other paragraph.


 * Hydrology
 * Some of these figures are from 1975-76, is there nothing newer available?
 * There is not.


 * "The values on these years" - I don't think "on" is the right word here - "In" or "during" seem more appropriate
 * Changed.

"The peak annual discharge of Big Wapwallopen Creek at its mouth has a 10 percent chance of reaching 3350 cubic feet per second. It has a 2 percent chance of reaching 6550 cubic feet per second and a 1 percent chance of reaching 8400 cubic feet per second. The peak annual discharge has a 0.2 percent chance of reaching 15,000 cubic feet per second." that is a lot of examples - is it perhaps a bit over the top especially when adding details from the tributaries too? Seems almost like trivia overload? is this level of detail common in these types of articles?
 * A pretty high level of detail is suitable in these articles, as a lot of information is available.


 * Geography, geology, and climate
 * Is there a link for the term "physiographic province."??
 * It's basically just a geographical region.


 * "Each of the waterfalls is" should be "Each of the waterfalls are"
 * Okay.


 * "through glacial material" = "through the glacial material"
 * "Glacial material" has not yet been mentioned, so an article is required.


 * "Big Wapwallopen Creek is relatively small for a creek." - how about some context here" in what way smaller? compare to averages perhaps?
 * Tweaked.


 * "(the late Devonian)" = "(the late Devonian age)"
 * Pretty sure most people know what the Devonian is.


 * "three quarters" = "three-quarters"
 * This article is in American English.


 * "The old glacial valley of Big Wapwallopen Creek was broad and gently sloping.[12]" a one sentence paragraph, can it perhaps be worked in with other facts?
 * Done.


 * Watershed
 * 100 year " = "100-year"
 * History
 * "Prince Maximilian of Wied visited area" = "Prince Maximilian of Wied visited the area"
 * Done.


 * "were under operation" = "were in operation"
 * Done.


 * I assume that "sawills" should be "sawmills"?
 * Done.


 * "in several properties" - the word "in" seems wrong here?
 * Done.


 * "Around this time," please clarify when please?
 * Done.


 * "to depth" either "to a depth" or "to the depth"
 * Done.


 * I believe "floodwaters" is two words?
 * Not necessarily.
 * Biology


 * "One such section is a 4.7-mile-long stretch of the creek from Crystal Lake to a powerline crossing upstream of Nuangola Road is Class A Wild Trout Waters for both brook trout and brown trout." poor sentence structure, the "one such" start does not match up with "is Class A"
 * Tweaked.


 * Sentence starting with "There are riparian forests" could be joined into the previous paragraph so all the "tree talk" is in the same paragraph to joint it up neatly.
 * Done.


 * Recreation
 * "The drinking water well for the camp is inactive.[10]" - not sure if that's important to the Creek article?
 * Okay, removed.


 * "In 2015, it opens" should be past tense
 * Tweaked.

General
Review complete, I will put on hold to allow for improvements. I will swing by and check off anything that looks addressed in the next day or so. Not that much to address, it's in good shape
 * Every issue listed before the "Well done" section appear to have been addressed ✅ and I see the last part being actively worked on too, excellent.  MPJ  -US 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - I have not heard back from you if you are ready for me to re-review this?
 * Excellent work, all looks addressed if I am not mistaken, happy to pass this.  MPJ  -US 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)